However perhaps you could describe to me what you mean by evolution. If it is the standard neo Darwinian process then it has everything to do with evolution theory.However you may have a different view of evolution. Do you?

Epi genetics is the study of control other that genomic control.That is what epi means -- extra or above.Also you are correct. Neither epigenetics nor gene regulation have anything to do with evolution.

The whole point that I am arguing is whether these control mechanisms came about by random mutations of the genome from an existing organism. The theory of “evolution” says it does and I am arguing it does not.

by Genotype » Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:58 pm

Where does it say that similar genotype aren't capable of producing different phenotypes?

The standard theory states that random mutations to the genome cause (gradually) the different phenotypic changes does it not? Are you subscribing to a different theory?

By the way why do you use the term "Darwinism"? Does it make you feel any better?

I use the term “Darwinisn” simply because that is a term used by many adherents to the theory themselves.I feel neither better or worse in using it.

Would you like me to use another term? If so please let me know and I will try to oblige so long as it is not in any way abusive or inflammatory.

The Universal Code Dilemma of Darwinism.(or however Genotype would like me to refer to it as)

In 1986 Richard Dawkins (The selfish gene) claimed that the genetic code is universal across all organisms, and cited this as evidence, indeed as near conclusive proof that every living organism in our planet descended from a single common ancestor.

In his 2009 book The Greatest Show on Earth he reiterates this claim.

“the genetic code is universal, all but identical across animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, archaea and viruses. The 64-word dictionary, by which three letter DNA words are translated into 20 amino acids and one punctuation mark, which means 'start reading here' or 'stop reading here,' is the same 64-word dictionary wherever you look in the living kingdoms (with one or two exceptions too minor to undermine the generalization)”

He goes on to explain why this is important.

Any mutation in the genetic code itself (as opposed to mutations in the genes that it encodes) would have an instantly catastrophic effect, not just in one place but throughout the whole organism. If any word in the 64-word dictionary changed its meaning, so that it came to specify a different amino acid, just about every protein in the body would instantaneously change, probably in many places along its length. Unlike an ordinary mutation...this would spell disaster. (2009, p. 409-10).(my emphasis)

Is Dawkins correct? If the Darwinian mechanism is true then yes, he is correct.

Hmmm. So, once, a few billion years ago created a reasonable membranes, standardized first version of the peptide-nucleic molecular technology, and armed with her​​, travel to the Metagallaktik. Then somewhere a bit more than once the standard has changed, but the basics remain the same. But the main thing - the version of Darwinism, according to which natural selection is combined not with the "Evolution" - from simple replicators to the "crown of creation", but with vice versa, the "Devolution" from a reasonable universal form - to super-specialized species of dead-end.http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fspacenoology.agro.name%2FExcuse me my inglish Google

scottie wrote:The standard theory states that random mutations to the genome cause (gradually) the different phenotypic changes does it not? Are you subscribing to a different theory?

Does it state mutations alone can cause pheontypic changes? That seems to be your point, right? I'd love some sources on that. Phenotype is usually the result of both genetic and environmental factors.

And what you've talked above is metamorphosis, what has it got to do with TOE?

scottie wrote:

By the way why do you use the term "Darwinism"? Does it make you feel any better?

I use the term “Darwinisn” simply because that is a term used by many adherents to the theory themselves.I feel neither better or worse in using it.

Would you like me to use another term? If so please let me know and I will try to oblige so long as it is not in any way abusive or inflammatory.

Theory of evolution please. We're thankful to Darwin that he's formulated perhaps the one of the most solid theories in science, but modern TOE has come leaps and bounds since. And we're talking about genetics, I don't see why you'd call it "Darwinian" anyways.

"These authors broadly agree with Darwin's view that the most important evolutionary changes at the level of the visible phenotype, as revealed by paleontological and systematic studies, have resulted from natural selection acting on variation within populations. This variation is ultimately due to mutations that arise at random with respect to the direction of selection."

It goes on to describe challenges to this theory, in particular by Gould where it quotes Gould in part

".. The pattern of morphological stasis for most lineages and the sudden appearance of new forms is contrasted with the alternative mode of gradual evolution of species."

There are perhaps differing views at the edges of this but the foundation pillar is the random mutation of genome filtered by natural selection from a common ancester and that this process is gradual. You just have to read Dawkins, Coyne and indeed others to note that gradualism is prominent. Small incremental steps of random change.

Sorry you are having trouble understanding my posts. I will try and be a little clearer.

My reference to metamorphosis simply illustrates that changes in phenotype do not require changes in genotype as the theory states. Something else is at work.This contrasts with the Dawkin's "selfish gene" and "mount improbable" for instance.

Yes? Ukrainian? And I try to write in Russian ... This is very good. I can easily understand what translate Google from English! Then take a look here is more!

We almost all remember from biology: "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." This is according to the theory of evolution. And from the standpoint of the theory devolution - "ontogeny repeats metamorphosis of primary universal amphibians". From the standpoint of those of amphibians, our "embryo" - it's unfortunate larva, devoid of happiness independent existence during the most exciting stages of childhood - from the stage myuller-larve!

GenotypePlease read my post in it’s entirety. I responded to your request to provide citation..I did with the direct quote from “A Neo Darwinian commentary of Macroevolution”That very specifically states

This variation is ultimately due to mutations that arise at random with respect to the direction of selection."

Now if you disagree with that postulate then your disagreement is not with me but with the authors of the commentary.I also did state very clearly that

There are perhaps differing views at the edges of this but the foundation pillar is the random mutation of genome filtered by natural selection from a common ancester and that this process is gradual.

So I standby my statement.

The whole interest in the study of epigenetics is precisely because the understanding that mutations of the genome are the driver for the theory is rapidly being eroded.Why else are distinguished scientists like Margulis, Koonan and many others distancing themselves from the neo-Darwinian hypothesis ?

The theory of common descent, simply postulates that all life evolved from one kind of organism and that each species arose from another species that preceded it in time. Each group of organisms shares a common ancestor.

This is a challenge to the standard theory because random mutations in the genome is clearly not the answer.

Therefore how does, or what is the mechanism that turns a cell without a nucleus ie a prokaryote into a cell with a nucleus a eukaryote. There are some similarities between the two types of cell, however there are also many other differences as well.

This is where the Endosymbiotic theory enters, to postulate the mechanism by which this all came about.

“Margulis' original hypothesis proposed that aerobic bacteria (that require oxygen) were ingested by anaerobic bacteria (poisoned by oxygen), and may each have had a survival advantage as long as they continued their partnership.”

“1. . The timeline of life on Earth:a. Anaerobic bacteria: Scientists have fossil evidence of bacterial life on Earth ~3.8 billion years ago. At this time, the atmosphere of the Earth did not contain oxygen, and all life (bacterial cells) was anaerobic.”

What we do have is an awful lot of speculation. The fuel for all this speculation is simple to understand.

Life could not have got started naturally in an atmosphere that contained oxygen.Any schoolboy chemist would be able to explain the chemistry of why that cannot happen.

I could of course go into the physics and chemistry of this should anyone wish to dispute this. In fact I would welcome someone to rebut this.

This theory therefore falls at the first evidential hurdle.My point is simple. Someone needs to produce some evidence other than tall tales about what may have led to an early earth atmosphere containing no oxygen.Speculation is not science.Of course there is a lot more but lets leave that for another post.

Yes, you've collected all the basic propositions around which is a long argument. It's all about, I repeat once again - in the synthesis of the theory of evolution (from simple replicators to "crown selection") and natural selection. But personally, I abandoned this "evolution" and replace it with "devolution"! And this "Darwinism" was stable enough! http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... ge_id%3D82That think is IRREVERSIBLE the loss of a free stage for larvae placed our "embryo" in the egg, then - in the genital tract for pregnancy. But the frog "embryo" is placed in the egg stage only with fish (Turbellaria And today, there is also a form of free-floating planula!)! Hence, the ancestors of amphibians also have the same nymphs in their voluntary metamorphosis! But this is Stegocephalia! So, coelacanth, then ihtiostega, akantostega - this is not adult organisms, but the intermediate stages of metamorphosis Stegocephalia! Oh, how we lie to many paleontologists for this silly theory of evolution! A modern fish, respectively - the victim of neoteny as the axolotl, in which the land morphology all lost. But in flatworms (parasite - fasciola) stage of the fish - adolescariae ...